Top 100 Project Pre-Lists

[Basketballefan]

Im actually pretty sad to see how many guys seem so concerned with where one or two specific guys fall on the list.

I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if someone put your boi Dirk outside the top 20 or so.

[Texas Chuck]

Im actually pretty sad to see how many guys seem so concerned with where one or two specific guys fall on the list.

I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if someone put your boi Dirk outside the top 20 or so.

I don't care if anyone puts him outside the top 20. It's their opinion. I might disagree of course, but I think there is room for debate in regards to Dirk.

I'm certainly not going to be pimping Dirk in this project. He stands on his own merits. I'll join in the discussion of him pointing out his strengths weaknesses as I perceive them. I think I can add a good bit to the Dirk discussion because I've seen every minute of his career. I also understand I have a pro-Dirk bias and that I am going to have to be careful to be objective.

But what I'm certainly not going to do is whine or cry if he falls lower than I think he should (which is likely) or if he falls below KG and Kobe(which I think is almost certain).

[ElGee]

He is just going to have to make deeper runs in the playoffs, the all time greats get their teams far sooner or later regardless of circumstances. Eventually the excuses will run out and he will need to get it done, he has enough help at this point.

That's circular logic. :/

You might as well say "all-time greats never let their teams fall into mediocrity or worse." Then you would have a list based on players who "proved" they are good by never being on bad teams -- if you "proved" your lack of greatness by being on a bad team in your prime, you "can't" be in the top 10.

1. Russell
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Nash
8. Pippen
9. Stockton
10. Dirk

Jordan can't be there.
Kareem can't be there.
Wilt can't be there.
Kobe can't be there.
Hakeem can't be there.
Garnett can't be there.
Oscar can't be there.
Barkley can't be there.
Moses can't be there.
West can't be there.

Those guys are all in the next group. But can't be among the greats if you don't prove your greatness by avoiding a marginal team record.

Now, if what I just said sounds arbitrary or silly to you, realize this is exactly what your statement sounds like (and I've used a reflective extension of your own premise). If you really believe in "regardless of circumstance," I will suggest to you that you are either not understanding probability or basketball.

[Basketballefan]

He is just going to have to make deeper runs in the playoffs, the all time greats get their teams far sooner or later regardless of circumstances. Eventually the excuses will run out and he will need to get it done, he has enough help at this point.

That's circular logic. :/

You might as well say "all-time greats never let their teams fall into mediocrity or worse." Then you would have a list based on players who "proved" they are good by never being on bad teams -- if you "proved" your lack of greatness by being on a bad team in your prime, you "can't" be in the top 10.

1. Russell
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Nash
8. Pippen
9. Stockton
10. Dirk

Jordan can't be there.
Kareem can't be there.
Wilt can't be there.
Kobe can't be there.
Hakeem can't be there.
Garnett can't be there.
Oscar can't be there.
Barkley can't be there.
Moses can't be there.
West can't be there.

Those guys are all in the next group. But can't be among the greats if you don't prove your greatness by avoiding a marginal team record.

Now, if what I just said sounds arbitrary or silly to you, realize this is exactly what your statement sounds like (and I've used a reflective extension of your own premise). If you really believe in "regardless of circumstance," I will suggest to you that you are either not understanding probability or basketball.

The point is Chris Paul now has enough help so there should be no more excuses, i already said that. I don't know what you're trying to prove obviously the top 10 Guys had great teams, but were even greater because they were there. Obviously Paul isn't on their level so i don't judge him by their standards of multiple rings. You typed all that for nothing. If Paul continues to lose early in the playoffs and you want to continue with the excuses go ahead because i won't.

Good straw man though.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure i never said anything about an all time great not being allowed to have a bad team record. All those guys you named, did they or did they not make it deep in the playoffs during their careers? Of course they did because great players eventually do go far.

[Doctor MJ]

Update:

Still formatting the lists. Aiming to get results up late tonight when I come back from a thing.

So folks know:

I've cut it to a Top 50 compiled list because people aren't doing 100 for the most part.

How it's being counted: Lowest guy listed gets 1 point, each spot above him gets one more.

So, up through 50, the longer list you made, the more technically you vote counts. However, if you think about it this doesn't really give one person more voice than another, and I shift the smaller lists down because I don't want someone to get a 25 point lead over someone else simply because they finished 25th in a Top 25 list where another guy would have been #26.

[Baller2014]

Since KG is better than Kobe, it's not at all strange he'd be ahead. It look to me like the mistake of last list, putting Kobe #10, is going to be corrected, with him in the 11-15 range where he should be. To compare his situation to Duncan, a better peak player by a large margin who has more longevity, doesn't make much sense.

[therealbig3]

Well, I hope we see more of an argument for why Kobe should be ranked over KG and Dirk than simply "it would be ridiculous if Kobe is ranked below KG and Dirk!"

Really wish mysticbb was still around for this very reason...he's made some REALLY convincing arguments for Dirk and why he should be ranked over Kobe which were pretty hard to ignore. Outside of narrative, why exactly should Kobe rank over those guys?

Don't answer me here, we'll get to it when it's time to vote in the top 75-100, but I don't really like the "NO WAY should Kobe be ranked below these guys!" kind of thinking...make the case, don't just act incredulous and pretend like that's an argument. There's nothing obvious about Kobe being better than KG or Dirk. He's no Jordan or Kareem.

[ElGee]

That's circular logic. :/

You might as well say "all-time greats never let their teams fall into mediocrity or worse." Then you would have a list based on players who "proved" they are good by never being on bad teams -- if you "proved" your lack of greatness by being on a bad team in your prime, you "can't" be in the top 10.

1. Russell
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Nash
8. Pippen
9. Stockton
10. Dirk

Jordan can't be there.
Kareem can't be there.
Wilt can't be there.
Kobe can't be there.
Hakeem can't be there.
Garnett can't be there.
Oscar can't be there.
Barkley can't be there.
Moses can't be there.
West can't be there.

Those guys are all in the next group. But can't be among the greats if you don't prove your greatness by avoiding a marginal team record.

Now, if what I just said sounds arbitrary or silly to you, realize this is exactly what your statement sounds like (and I've used a reflective extension of your own premise). If you really believe in "regardless of circumstance," I will suggest to you that you are either not understanding probability or basketball.

The point is Chris Paul now has enough help so there should be no more excuses, i already said that. I don't know what you're trying to prove obviously the top 10 Guys had great teams, but were even greater because they were there. Obviously Paul isn't on their level so i don't judge him by their standards of multiple rings. You typed all that for nothing. If Paul continues to lose early in the playoffs and you want to continue with the excuses go ahead because i won't.

Good straw man though.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure i never said anything about an all time great not being allowed to have a bad team record. All those guys you named, did they or did they not make it deep in the playoffs during their careers? Of course they did because great players eventually do go far.

I think you missed the entire point -- your original statement that I quoted is a Red Herring.

Person A: Chris Paul is better at basketball than Dwayne Wade
You: What possible argument does Chris Paul have over Wade? The guy has never been to a conference finals.

You are equating an individual's team making it to the CF's as having something to do with how good he is at basketball. It is independent of how good CP is at basketball. The result of a team making the CF is the combination of the quality of the team and the quality of its opponents.

Chris Paul may make his team 5 points better.
Chris Paul's team may be -10 without him.
Chris Paul's team may be +10 without him.
Chris Paul's team may be 0 without him.

With Paul, if his team is better than the opponent, there is still only the chance of the team advancing, based largely on things that have nothing to do with how good Chris Paul is at basketball.

You might be thinking that it's "likely" that if the player is that good, that they will make the CF's. Yes, it's likely, but it's completely irrelevant to how well the player played because it's a function of his teammates and the opponent. Correlation is not causation. It would be a logical fallacy then to use that as a check to see if a guy was indeed that good, when there is a clear chance of being that good and not reaching that mark. Furthermore, the whole point of analyzing how good someone is at basketball is to separate that individual from their team result; this isn't sprinting, or else we should just look in the standings column to rank players.

[Basketballefan]

That's circular logic. :/

You might as well say "all-time greats never let their teams fall into mediocrity or worse." Then you would have a list based on players who "proved" they are good by never being on bad teams -- if you "proved" your lack of greatness by being on a bad team in your prime, you "can't" be in the top 10.

1. Russell
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Robinson
7. Nash
8. Pippen
9. Stockton
10. Dirk

Jordan can't be there.
Kareem can't be there.
Wilt can't be there.
Kobe can't be there.
Hakeem can't be there.
Garnett can't be there.
Oscar can't be there.
Barkley can't be there.
Moses can't be there.
West can't be there.

Those guys are all in the next group. But can't be among the greats if you don't prove your greatness by avoiding a marginal team record.

Now, if what I just said sounds arbitrary or silly to you, realize this is exactly what your statement sounds like (and I've used a reflective extension of your own premise). If you really believe in "regardless of circumstance," I will suggest to you that you are either not understanding probability or basketball.

The point is Chris Paul now has enough help so there should be no more excuses, i already said that. I don't know what you're trying to prove obviously the top 10 Guys had great teams, but were even greater because they were there. Obviously Paul isn't on their level so i don't judge him by their standards of multiple rings. You typed all that for nothing. If Paul continues to lose early in the playoffs and you want to continue with the excuses go ahead because i won't.

Good straw man though.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure i never said anything about an all time great not being allowed to have a bad team record. All those guys you named, did they or did they not make it deep in the playoffs during their careers? Of course they did because great players eventually do go far.

I think you missed the entire point -- your original statement that I quoted is a Red Herring.

Person A: Chris Paul is better at basketball than Dwayne Wade
You: What possible argument does Chris Paul have over Wade? The guy has never been to a conference finals.

You are equating an individual's team making it to the CF's as having something to do with how good he is at basketball. It is independent of how good CP is at basketball. The result of a team making the CF is the combination of the quality of the team and the quality of its opponents.

Chris Paul may make his team 5 points better.
Chris Paul's team may be -10 without him.
Chris Paul's team may be +10 without him.
Chris Paul's team may be 0 without him.

With Paul, if his team is better than the opponent, there is still only the chance of the team advancing, based largely on things that have nothing to do with how good Chris Paul is at basketball.

You might be thinking that it's "likely" that if the player is that good, that they will make the CF's. Yes, it's likely, but it's completely irrelevant to how well the player played because it's a function of his teammates and the opponent. Correlation is not causation. It would be a logical fallacy then to use that as a check to see if a guy was indeed that good, when there is a clear chance of being that good and not reaching that mark. Furthermore, the whole point of analyzing how good someone is at basketball is to separate that individual from their team result; this isn't sprinting, or else we should just look in the standings column to rank players.

If you have nothing better to do then write out an essay on something like this then i feel sorry for you. Wade has had the better peak, better prime and has the success and accolades to go along with it thus he is going to be ranked higher all time which i already stated. So i guess if Michael Jordan never went to the conference finals then he'd still be the best ever right? Players to a degree are going to ranked on what type of playoff success they've had whether its fair or not that's perception. Deal with it.

[Purch]

When making an all time list, I think it's obvious that success will have to factor into it to a certain degree. Especilly when you get higher up in the rankings, because at that point you're talking about individualy dominant players, who also have the accolades to support their position. It's not the end all be all, but if you're expecting posters to simply ignore it in this project, I think you might be sorely disappointed.

[therealbig3]

If you have nothing better to do then write out an essay on something like this then i feel sorry for you. Wade has had the better peak, better prime and has the success and accolades to go along with it thus he is going to be ranked higher all time which i already stated. So i guess if Michael Jordan never went to the conference finals then he'd still be the best ever right? Players to a degree are going to ranked on what type of playoff success they've had whether its fair or not that's perception. Deal with it.

You should actually try to listen and understand the point when someone is educating you. His point has nothing to do with Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade at all, if you actually understood it.

"Deal with it" , I didn't know I was in the 5th grade again.

[therealbig3]

When making an all time list, I think it's obvious that success will have to factor into it to a certain degree. Especilly when you get higher up in the rankings, because at that point you're talking about individualy dominant players, who also have the accolades to support their position. It's not the end all be all, but if you're expecting posters to simply ignore it in this project, I think you might be sorely disappointed.

Sure, but I think what ElGee wants to know is...WHY do you use team success? What does it tell you that you can't figure out from other methods of evaluation?

I think he's getting at correlation vs causation. Just because a player is good, doesn't mean his team will win a lot. Conversely, just because a team wins a lot, doesn't mean that a certain player is good.

His point makes a lot of sense to me, personally...I don't think it's fair or accurate to judge a player based on factors out of their control.

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, the Quick & Dirty Tallied Top 50:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Tim Duncan
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Magic Johnson
(tie) Wilt Chamberlain
8. LeBron James
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Kevin Garnett
14. Dirk Nowitzki
15. Julius Erving
16. Jerry West
17. Karl Malone
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. Dwyane Wade
22. John Stockton
23. Scottie Pippen
24. Bob Pettit
25. Steve Nash
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Rick Barry
28. John Havlicek
29. Walt Frazier
30. Jason Kidd
31. Elgin Baylor
32. Clyde Drexler
33. Gary Payton
34. Artis Gilmore
35. Kevin Durant
36. Chris Paul
37. Paul Pierce
38. Isiah Thomas
39. Kevin McHale
40. Reggie Miller
41. George Gervin
42. Dikembe Mutombo
43. Willis Reed
44. George Mikan
45. Dave Cowens
(tie) Tracy McGrady
47. Elvin Hayes
48. Dwight Howard
49. Alonzo Mourning
50. Ray Allen

[Basketballefan]

If you have nothing better to do then write out an essay on something like this then i feel sorry for you. Wade has had the better peak, better prime and has the success and accolades to go along with it thus he is going to be ranked higher all time which i already stated. So i guess if Michael Jordan never went to the conference finals then he'd still be the best ever right? Players to a degree are going to ranked on what type of playoff success they've had whether its fair or not that's perception. Deal with it.

You should actually try to listen and understand the point when someone is educating you. His point has nothing to do with Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade at all, if you actually understood it.

"Deal with it" , I didn't know I was in the 5th grade again.

I did understand it, but my point is the issue he was adressing wasn't my actual argument, Educating me funny, i had real life academic education and it wasn't on realgm, something some of you people should try.

[therealbig3]

If you have nothing better to do then write out an essay on something like this then i feel sorry for you. Wade has had the better peak, better prime and has the success and accolades to go along with it thus he is going to be ranked higher all time which i already stated. So i guess if Michael Jordan never went to the conference finals then he'd still be the best ever right? Players to a degree are going to ranked on what type of playoff success they've had whether its fair or not that's perception. Deal with it.

You should actually try to listen and understand the point when someone is educating you. His point has nothing to do with Chris Paul and Dwyane Wade at all, if you actually understood it.

"Deal with it" , I didn't know I was in the 5th grade again.

I did understand it, but my point is the issue he was adressing wasn't my actual argument, Educating me funny, i had real life academic education and it wasn't on realgm, something some of you people should try.

He actually did address your argument, you clearly didn't understand his point.

And yeah...that whole real life academic education thing...I had that too. So did ElGee. And that still has nothing to do with this topic.

[eliasrapp98]

I'll go top 15 just for fun.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Shaq
8. Lebron
9. Hakeem
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. KG
14. Karl
15. Dirk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baller2014]

I'll go top 15 just for fun.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Shaq
8. Lebron
9. Hakeem
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. KG
14. Karl
15. Dirk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to ask to sign up on the top 100 sign up thread (it's stickied) if you want to participate. And you need to give more reasons. It's too late for this thread, but they should let you participate in thread #3 provided you give good reasons.

[O_6]

I purposely decided not to come up with a Top 25/50/100 list so I could come in and vote based on my true feelings and not some fake sense of protecting "my guy/list".

But holy cr is this sh hard. I had my Top 3 pretty much set, and it seems like the Top 3 is pretty much a board consensus at this point. This Kareem vs. Russell battle for #2 has been fantastic to read through, but I think it's pretty clear that the loser of the battle will easily take the #3 spot.

I'm absolutely floored over the endless possibilities on how to rank 4-10. I don't even have a clear-cut #4 right now (although leaning a certain direction...) and I'm really studying it up preparing for those #4-#8 threads which promise to be absolute Warzones. This project has been really informative so far, but I think things are going to get really fun in a couple of days.

[trex_8063]

Alright, the Quick & Dirty Tallied Top 50:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Tim Duncan
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Magic Johnson
(tie) Wilt Chamberlain
8. LeBron James
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Kevin Garnett
14. Dirk Nowitzki
15. Julius Erving
16. Jerry West
17. Karl Malone
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. Dwyane Wade
22. John Stockton
23. Scottie Pippen
24. Bob Pettit
25. Steve Nash
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Rick Barry
28. John Havlicek
29. Walt Frazier
30. Jason Kidd
31. Elgin Baylor
32. Clyde Drexler
33. Gary Payton
34. Artis Gilmore
35. Kevin Durant
36. Chris Paul
37. Paul Pierce
38. Isiah Thomas
39. Kevin McHale
40. Reggie Miller
41. George Gervin
42. Dikembe Mutombo
43. Willis Reed
44. George Mikan
45. Dave Cowens
(tie) Tracy McGrady
47. Elvin Hayes
48. Dwight Howard
49. Alonzo Mourning
50. Ray Allen

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Doc.
While obv I don't agree with every placement (even one or two I disagree with by a somewhat substantial margin), this is on the whole :insertpreparationHjoke: a pretty respectable top 50 list, imo.

[john248]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Tim Duncan
6. Lebron James
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Hakeem Olajuwon

11. Kobe Bryant
12. Jerry West
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Dirk Nowitzki
15. Kevin Garnett
16. Julius Erving
17. Karl Malone
18. Charles Barkley
19. David Robinson
20. Bob Pettit

21. Moses Malone
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Steve Nash
24. Walt Frazier
25. John Stockton
26. Artis Gilmore
27. Rick Barry
28. Patrick Ewing
29. Reggie Miller
30. George Gervin

31. Chris Paul
32. Kevin Durant
33. Scottie Pippen
34. Jason Kidd
35. Clyde Drexler
36. Elgin Baylor
37. Gary Payton
38. Paul Pierce
39. Dwight Howard
40. Alonzo Mourning

41. Isiah Thomas
42. Kevin McHale
43. Ray Allen
44. Pau Gasol
45. Tracy McGrady
46. Dominique Wilkins
47. Willis Reed
48. Dikembe Mutombo
49. John Havlicek
50. Manu Ginobili

51. Dennis Rodman
52. Kevin Johnson
53. Sidney Moncrief
54. Tony Parker
55. Vince Carter
56. Alex English
57. Allen Iverson
58. Grant Hill
59. Anfernee Hardaway